In IR every war fought is and could be justifiable. Give your informed opinion analysis of this assumption using the three broad categories of just war theory? Hence, all write- should be in a table format with Two Columns, and with proper references .

The assumption that "In IR every war fought is and could be justifiable" is highly contentious and largely contradicted by the principles of Just War Theory. This theory provides a framework for evaluating the morality of war, establishing criteria that, if not met, render a conflict unjustifiable. Here's an analysis using the three broad categories of Just War Theory: | Just War Theory Category | Analysis of the Assumption: "Every war fought is and could be justifiable" | | :----------------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Jus ad bellum (Justice in going to war) | This category sets strict ethical conditions for initiating war, including just cause (e.g., self-defense against aggression), legitimate authority, right intention, last resort, and proportionality of ends. The assumption that every war is justifiable directly conflicts with these principles. Many wars are initiated without a clear just cause, by illegitimate actors, or without exhausting all peaceful alternatives, making them morally indefensible from the outset. For instance, wars of conquest or pre-emptive strikes without imminent threat would typically fail the just cause criterion. | | Jus in bello (Justice in conducting war) | Even if a war is justly initiated, jus in bello governs the ethical conduct of warfare. Key principles include discrimination (protecting non-combatants and civilian infrastructure) and proportionality of means (using only necessary and proportionate force). The assumption fails here because even wars with a just cause can become unjustifiable if combatants commit atrocities, deliberately target civilians, or use excessive and indiscriminate force. Violations of these rules of conduct render the execution of the war, or specific actions within it, morally wrong. | | Jus post bellum (Justice after war) | This category addresses the ethical responsibilities of belligerents after a conflict ends, focusing on achieving a just and lasting peace. Criteria include proportionality and publicity of peace settlements, rights vindication for victims, and punishment of war criminals. The assumption that every war is justifiable overlooks the potential for unjust outcomes or peace treaties that fail to address root causes or sow the seeds for future conflict. A war might be fought justly but conclude with an unjust peace, failing to restore order or address grievances, thereby undermining any initial justification for the entire conflict. | References: The principles of Just War Theory have deep historical roots in philosophical and theological traditions, notably articulated by thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and further developed in international law and contemporary ethical discourse. What's next? 📸